 | | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) It was quite clearly a sign from God that Scientology is in fact stupid. DaveE (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Interestingly (or maybe not--you tell me), something analogous happened to me a few years ago during a one-on-one meeting with a Scientology "Advocate" (or whatever their brainwashers are called). Eventually I got sick of the crazy rhetoric (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Lobster Bisque (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
Ok, I noticed something odd while mulling over the topic on my way home last night... While I admitted elsewhere that I agree to a certain degree of immorality for eating meat, but that it was negligible, I'm actually not sure that's the case-- at (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Very disappointing. You guys never insulted each other either. :-) Try to do better next time Dave! (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes: : (...) To-may-to, to-mah-to, I guess! The difference in our view seems to come down to this: I support a "transitional range" within which distinction is made between one state and another (be it (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah- I would are *similarly*. I.E. that a line *does* exist yet is next to impossible to find accurately. (...) Neither do I really-- that's why I said it only works if you define it differently. I really rather like the hot/cold example better (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Ah, now I see. That's what I get for jumping in mid-stride. I was approaching the issue as if you were espousing your own view, rather than pointing out the implications of an opposing view. Oops. (...) I would sum up by saying that it is not (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) My intent is to spark interesting discussion, nothing more. I am not the only person who posts cites or excerpts from various places, although my frequency may be a bit higher than some. I would welcome others posting interesting discussion (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
Larry, I really would like to know what your intent is of continiously posting material from the Libertarian party? Are you hoping to "convert" people into Libertarians? That seems to be the general impression I am getting. Offhand, I cannot think (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Matthew Gerber writes: <snip> (...) You've got a point, but it's not directed at the right group. *All* the off-topic groups are meant to discuss *non*-lego things, which is why (well... sorta (1)) they are on the default (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
|
(...) That wasn't Todd's intent, read the intro post he made that shows the charter. You are more than welcome not to participate. It would be too bad if you didn't, unlike some current participants we'd be better off without, but there is no one (...) (23 years ago, 6-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Long as its a 12 long technic axle so it can bend a bit.... 8?) (...) I think this is all consistent with my (current) view that we don't have any "fundamental" rights. They're all derived from our (collective) experience over the ages of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) I think I am defining that line of mine a little better. If there is questionable material on TV (which I feel there is), I don't watch it. If there are other people who feel as I do, ratings will drop. With dropping ratings, advertisers will (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | The purpose of lugnet.off-topic.debate (was Re: What is spam?)
|
|
(...) Man, you're just lookin' for a debate (any debate!) today, aren't ya'? 8?D I know I'll likley break my own word at some time in the future, and probably get lambasted then for doing so, but here goes: <way too rightous for my own good> I read (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) Yuck. The only checks on the media should be free market and property rights. (...) Protection against libel is a property right. (...) Things like autopsy photos should be adequately protected by property rights. The family most certainly has (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I never said they *must* emerge in their "fully developed" state-- only that they must, at some point, be considered "self-aware" at some *point*. And again, that's only assuming that at one point they *DON'T* exist AT ALL, and at another (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) I think that the government *does* need to step in in cases of public interest and libel. Otherwise, if you don't like what you are reading - stop reading. On the other hand, those are both restrictions, so obviously I feel that governmental (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: FOTM/LOTM (Loss of the Month) Some thoughts...
|
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes: - snip - (...) First of all, I would not define "class warfare" in this way. To me, "class warfare" sounds like a fight between the "have"s and the "have-not"s. Calling this discussion "class warfare" (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What is spam? (was Re: Scary Survey results about the US First Amendment
|
|
(...) People initiate topics all the time. Initiating a topic is, by nature, unbidden, except perhaps in the larger context of the events of the day raising awareness. So, then, any topic that is initiated by anyone can then be labeled spam by any (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) This, coming from you, is beyond laughable. You are the biggest contributor of useless noise to this group of anyone I've seen to date. (...) <ScottA> What's the matter? Not going to answer? Why not, afraid to? </ScottA> (...) -- | Tom Stangl, (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
